B1tF1ghter: What screen resolution do you have?
Does the dropdown menu continue beyond the bounds of the installer window itself?
Or does it just cut off?
erbello: 2K
I don't really know what you mean. There's SEVERAL resolutions commonly referred to as 2k ( these below are just EXAMPLES, there's more ) :
1920 x 1080
1920 x 1200
2048 x 1152
1440p ( I personally wouldn't call this 2k ).
It's best to just give exact pixel dimensions :P
Try to disable resolution scaling for the installer exe, under right click, somewhere in properties.
( Im not on Windows right now, I don't remember how exactly the option is called )
mk47at: Don't agree here. The seller has a responsibility for the things that are sold – digitally or not.
Hirako__: I don't agree with you either. Everyone has responsibilities - you have too. But do you have responsibility to take care of my kids(that I dont have)?
WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT ?!
Hirako__: Using simply the word responsibility does not mean anything.
( ... )
Other than that I don't see how that is GOG related.
You don't have to understand the laws for them to still apply.
Hirako__: The post you quoted was on something very specific which I will right away add should be covered in the Sony EULA that is added thankfully.
1. EULAs don't override laws. ( at least in most of EU )
2. Most people don't read EULAs anyway, the relevant info should be plastered over the product card.
3. The product card's url to the EULA is a tiny text, with poor contrast ( grey-ish text on grey-ish background, whereas most of the page uses BLACK as font color ), as if to discourage an average user from even trying to see it exists. Not a very pro costumer practise if you ask me.
4. The EULAs linked are GENERIC CATCH-ALL type, NOT specific to any game in particular; also nowhere in there word "GOG" exists.
It is also written AMBIGUOUSLY, full of "MAY". It's not clear what is ACTUALLY being done!
It could be easily argued these EULAs were written for Playstation Network SPECIFICALLY.
If you go to
https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/legal/application-terms-of-use-for-pc-and-mobile/?country-selector=true it could be argued point 4.1
"
4.1. All Software is licensed, not assigned, which means you acquire rights to use the Software, as described in these Terms, but you do not acquire ownership of the Software. If you do not comply with these Terms, we can terminate your Software licence which means you will no longer have the right to use the Software.
"
contradicts GOG TOS.
I'd have to dig out archives to check for sure but I'm quite sure it USED TO be that in the past GOG TOS did indeed allude to OWNING, and not "LICENSING".
GOG might have changed it - which still doesn't change anything for past purchases - as the TOS / contract is binding that was live AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE.
I'm also at least 50% certain point 6.1 contradicts some existing EU law which alludes to permission of resale of digitally obtained goods.
Also many points in that EULA don't even make common sense.
If you'd take point 5.2 (
https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/legal/application-terms-of-use-for-pc-and-mobile/?country-selector=true ) , you basically cannot stream the gameplay on Twitch for example.
And generally, these EULAs being full of "MAY, maybe", etc - if you'd take it LITERALLY it would suggest EVERY Playstation-publisher title "MAY" conduct tellemetry coverty in background.
This isn't clarity, it's ambiguous and anti-consumer.
Also pretty sure GDPR laws state things must be CLEAR to the end consumer, which here they sure as hell aren't.
WinterSnowfall: Since when was Sony pro-consumer? :P
Irrelevant.
B1tF1ghter: 2. Good luck doing this with every single game. Including every single hidden nested executable they might have aside from the primary one, in their respective game install directories.
WinterSnowfall: Say what? You simply block everything by default with a prompt whenever a new application needs access.
This prompt covers one exe at a time. And doesn't cover all possible network communication. Also, that's the thing, PROMPT.
There are network communications that don't require this prompt to show up and the system will allow it to a certain extent.
For FULL block you need to go to Firewall settings yourself and setup proper rules manually.
WinterSnowfall: It's quite easy, I've been doing it since WinXP days.
Dude, SO MUCH has changed since XP days it's not even a funny argument.
WinterSnowfall: you'd better start believing in cyberpunk dystopias, because you're in one :P.
PERHAPS I live in dystopia, it's debatable. What isn't is that it definitely isn't a 'cyberpunk' one.
Cyberpunk dystopias have futuristic tech and various other things this worldline so far doesn't possess.
WinterSnowfall: How is any of this "offending" if you agree to the EULA? I'm not saying I agree with telemetry of any kind, because I'm also strongly opposed to it, but that doesn't make it illegal. It simply means there's more legal loopholes publishers have to jump through for it to be there.
BECAUSE EULAs DON'T OVERRIDE LAWS! ( at least in SENSIBLE countries, good luck if you live in the USA... )
( FOR EU! ) If something contradicting an existing law is written in an EULA, then that EULA point is NOT BINDING for EU consumers.
It's that easy.
You can write whatever bs you want in EULA. It doesn't make it automatically legally binding in every country in the world.
The corpo SO FAR is not above the law in MOST civilised countries ( again, good luck if you're in USA ).
B1tF1ghter: Then it's downright illegal by the EU laws.
WinterSnowfall: You have to agree with the EULA to play their games, so it's not. You are given the illusion of choice, should you want to use their product on their terms or sod off.
Dog, you must be living in the USA. That or someone convinced you their logic applies in EU.
No offence. But in EU things are done differently.
mk47at: Don't agree here. The seller has a responsibility for the things that are sold – digitally or not.
WinterSnowfall: Really? If a farmer poisons his crop, would you arrest the stall vendor? No offense, but unless you are intimately familiar with how the retail market works, please don't use your intuition to decide who has responsibility for what. Because laws really aren't that intuitive in most cases.
If the stall vendor KNOWS about it? YES, they SHOULD be arrested and tried for being complicit in a crime.
Even if they DON'T know, they could still be arrested due to some other laws in effect - eg it's THEIR responsibility to MAKE SURE they aren't selling expired goods - they cannot just say "our employees didn't see it in time", THEY SOLD IT.
Aside from that, they sure as hell need to stop distributing it the moment they know it's poisoned.
And it could be argued GOG KNOWS about data collection, by linking the EULAs on the product cards THEY ( GOG ) control ( it's THEIR store, THEIR website that they link ON ).
( the rest of my response will be in part 2 in probably about 15 minutes, due to GOG's buggy CMS )